Last month, we received a 'parking charge' for apparently waiting at a double yellow line in a BP garage outside Stansted Airport.

The charge of £100 would be reduced to £60 if Dani – my fiancée and the registered keeper of the vehicle – paid within 14 days to a firm called MET Parking Services, based in London.

The date of issue of this notice was 12 July 2018. The date of the alleged contravention 3 June 2018, some 39 days previous.

Needless to say, we were furious. But after letting it sink in, I rolled up my sleeves and got ready to battle.

Driver frustration: A £100 'parking charge' for a few minutes in a petrol station while feeling unwell - is that fair? (Stock image)

Within the details of the charge was the following: 'Please note that we have obtained the name and address of the registered keeper of the vehicle from the DVLA for the purposes of enforcing this unpaid charge.'

The DVLA charges £2.50 to private firms to hand out details - and it is making around £1.5million a month doing so.

The penalty charge rung a few alarm bells so we decided to fight it. Here's how the action unfolded:

Share this article

HOW THIS IS MONEY CAN HELP

The parking charge

On 3 June, our car was photographed on a double yellow line at BP Connect, Stansted.

This was apparently a 'breach of terms and conditions that are displayed on signs in prominent places around the parking area.'

The photographs, with crude time stamps on them, show the car there.

But the main photograph included in the letter is so small you can't even see the vehicle – you have to log-on to its website to see the other evidence, extremely unfair for those who do not use the internet.

I cannot tell you who was driving (which I'll get onto shortly) but the person behind the wheel was picking up a loved one from Stansted Airport and stopped briefly.

A quick search online shows plenty of others have been caught out at this BP garage for stopping there, no matter what the length of time.

The letter: Here is what was sent by MET Parking Services (with personal details removed). I have circled the photograph of what is apparently our car

The appeal

There are a number of reasons why I believe this charge was incredibly unfair. I decided to only appeal using one of them, knowing it was strong enough.

The ones I didn't use was the signage, in my opinion, is incredibly small (as pictured below), and that the amount of the charge too high for allegedly breaking the T&Cs for a few minutes.

There is also the question of double yellow lines away from the public road.

According to rule 238 of the Highway Code: 'double yellow lines indicate a prohibition of waiting at any time even if there are no upright signs.'

This applies to the public highway, not private land. You can paint double yellow lines on your land if you like, but they are advisory not enforceable as they are on the road.

The one I did use was the following: The charge was sent 39 days after it was alleged to have happened.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 has a whole section dedicated to recovery of unpaid parking charges, under section 56.

I used the following legal jargon after reading online forums about the same situation:

9 (4)The notice must be given by— (a)handing it to the keeper, or leaving it at a current address for service for the keeper, within the relevant period; or (b)sending it by post to a current address for service for the keeper so that it is delivered to that address within the relevant period.

(5)The relevant period for the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) is the period of 14 days beginning with the day after that on which the specified period of parking ended.

Clearly, the demand for money was sent some time after 14 days. This could suggest a backlog of similar charges drivers are receiving.

Also when appealing and searching for advice online, it is clear that you should always refer to being the registered keeper, not the driver, as there is no legal obligation to reveal who was behind the wheel.

This is a golden rule when appealing a charge from a private firm.

BP Stansted: Here are the double yellow lines in question - the terms and conditions are underneath the 'no exit' sign

Our appeal was sent to MET Parking Services. We were quickly shut down with the firm saying: 'after careful consideration we have decided to reject your appeal.'

It goes on to add: 'The terms and conditions of parking are clearly stated on signs prominently displayed in this area.

'These include that vehicles must not park, wait, load or unload on yellow lines. Your vehicle was observed breaching these terms and conditions therefore we believe the charge notice was issued correctly and we are upholding it.'

The company didn't mention our grounds of appeal. It did have something called a POPLA Verification Code attached. POPLA, it says later in the letter, is an independent appeal service.

If we chose to appeal via POPLA, it told us in bold font: 'Should POPLA's decision NOT go in your favour, you will be required to pay the full amount of £100.'

That felt like scare tactics to squeeze another unjust £40 out of us, give up and pay.

All it did was add further fuel to the fire. I was now determined to win.

Unfair charge from a private firm?

Dealing with POPLA

Still feeling that we were in the right, I quickly fired off an appeal with POPLA, which was easy to do online.

I cited exactly the same reason as before.

The appeal took two weeks (I think it should have been quicker – any adjudicator would have seen the charge was sent outside of the required timeframe as set out in POFA 2012).

Lo and behold, MET Parking Services withdrew the charge stating 'goodwill' and did not want to contest it.

There are dozens of other cases of this happening at BP Stansted – and I am thankful for researching online to get the basic legal jargon required to contest it.

I urge anyone who receives a charge from a private firm to do the same. I believe many fear it may go to court and just want to pay it to put it to bed - but the appeal process is there for a reason.

In this case, the private firm tried their luck knowing full well it was outside of the set time limit it has to get in contact laid out by the Protection of Freedoms Act - it is worth bearing in mind.

The real loser? BP

Private parking firms have a reputation for what I would deem are unfair charges.

What I really dislike is major corporations like BP seemingly allowing them to operate on their premises.

This whole case has left a bitter taste in the mouth. We have a BP garage a few minutes up the road from where we live with an M&S attached.

Previously, we would frequently pop in to buy fuel and pick up a few essentials when in a rush, such as bread and milk.

However, we simply refuse to go anymore.

Sure, that sounds bitter and petty – but if a firm ever annoys you, I find it best to vote with your feet.

BP executives are hardly going to lose any sleep over it, but I honestly think it should question whether allowing private parking firms to try and bully people into paying unjust charges is the direction it wants to head.

This case has taught me one valuable lesson. If you ever receive a charge like this from a private firm, don't simply roll over and panic pay it.

Take your time, do some research and don't let them win – otherwise, drivers are slowly going to be panicked when stopping or parking anywhere in Big Brother Britain.

There is a chance that you will have your appeal quashed. They are relying on people being worried into paying their ridiculous charges without question.

Picking up at Stansted and waiting

The reason a private parking firm is likely to be targetting land owners to sign up in this area is Stansted Airport.

Like many airports, it now has high charges dished out to those picking up people. But, of course, planes often don't arrive at the allotted time and passengers often get delayed at passport control and baggage, so it is impossible to predict exactly when they will arrive.

This leads to people needing to wait around in vehicles to collect people. Rather than acknowledge this simple fact of airport life, Stansted has decided to milk extra profit from customers.

In the Express Set Down (which is technically for dropping people off, but drivers do also use it to pick up) it costs £3.50 for ten minutes.

For 10-15 minutes it is an additional £1 per minute and for more than 15 minutes it is £25.

In the green and orange short stay car park it is £5.50 for up to 30 minutes and £10 for up to one hour.

In the blue zone it is £4.20 up to 30 minutes and £8.20 for up to an hour.

It does have a free pick-up and drop off option via its mid stay car park which is a five minute courtesy bus ride away from the terminal forecourt.

However, all of the above have 'limited availability.'

This leads to drivers hovering around in pockets outside of Stansted as they wait for arrivals.

These drivers are in danger of being caught on camera by private firms looking to dish out charges on private land.

Presumably some have tried this at the BP garage, but if a fine is to be dished out surely the firm can differentiate between someone stopped momentarily and someone sat waiting for a prolonged period.

Do you want to automatically post your MailOnline comments to your Facebook Timeline?

Your comment will be posted to MailOnline as usual

We will automatically post your comment and a link to the news story to your Facebook timeline at the same time it is posted on MailOnline. To do this we will link your MailOnline account with your Facebook account. We’ll ask you to confirm this for your first post to Facebook.

You can choose on each post whether you would like it to be posted to Facebook. Your details from Facebook will be used to provide you with tailored content, marketing and ads in line with our Privacy Policy.